Super Rugby Axes 3 !!

[rowan]

Interesting couple of reads:

A Highlanders co-owner is part of a consortium seeking to bail out the beleaguered Western Force Super Rugby franchise.

Sydney-based digital ground signage businessman Raymond Burke bought into the Highlanders in 2015 after the Dunedin-based franchise won their first Super Rugby title.

He has now joined fellow successful businessmen Jon Collins, a former Australian Rugby Union (ARU) and Waratahs director, ex-ARU chief executive Gary Flowers and the Force's foundation chief executive Peter O'Meara, in the Own the Force campaign.

Canberra Times

Wallabies flanker Scott Fardy hopes the silver lining to Super Rugby's mess is that it triggers change for the "faceless men in suits" who are running the under-fire competition.

Players are growing increasingly frustrated as the Super Rugby overhaul saga continues to drag on, with the ARU yet to announce if it will cut the Western Force or the Melbourne Rebels.

The Force and the Rebels are trying to drag the ACT Brumbies back on to the chopping block, but the Canberra club's finances, on-field performances and stability has ensured its safety.

The uncertainty is hitting the players because those who are off contract are not allowed to sign contracts for next year and beyond until a decision is made on the Force and Rebels' future.


Continues here: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rugby-u ... vmvnj.html

[rowan]

Why not? They're already playing on every other continent, and Europe is a lot easier for South Africans than Japan. It sort of brings into question the whole geographical configuration of professional rugby, however. What is the meaning behind Super Rugby? It's no longer a regional championship, that's for sure. & if South African teams start playing in Europe that will also destroy the regional identity of competitions there. Sounds a bit mickey mouse to me.

The two South African franchises that will be axed from Super Rugby at the end of this season could play in the PRO12 if a South African administrator has his way.

Tony McKeever, who was the Port Elizabeth-based Southern Spears chief executive, has proposed that the two South African sides take part in the Northern Hemisphere competition once SA Rugby confirms which teams that will be.

The Southern Spears franchise was formed in 2005 with the intention of playing Super Rugby from 2007 after a unanimous decision by SA Rugby's Presidents Council.

That never materialised, however, and the Spears ceased to exist before the Southern Kings was established in 2009.

The Cheetahs and Kings appear to be the sides most likely to be axed from Super Rugby this year and while McKeever agrees that those sides should leave Super Rugby, he feels they can play in the PRO12 which runs from September to May.

"With the size of the current Currie Cup and Super Rugby squads, both the Cheetahs and EP Rugby could easily accommodate this schedule and start playing in September 2017," he told Sport24.

McKeever urged SA Rugby to "accept the news and the fact that two teams are certainly going to be cut and move on, like right now.

"I have already engaged the PRO12 CEO Martin Anayi and proposed he take these two teams and rebrand this as PRO14 and let the Cheetahs and Eastern Province Rugby be a part of this tournament, which starts in September.

"Martin is a visionary and seeks to expand PRO12 into new markets and grow the PRO12 TV audiences and spectators. This is a perfect synergistic way to accomplish that with South African Rugby."

McKeever wants a new Eastern Province Rugby brand to be established as "the Kings brand is so tarnished and damaged beyond repair, like Chernobyl, that no sponsor or corporate would ever consider associating themselves with the Kings."

He believes the addition of the Cheetahs and Kings will be a shot in the arm for the PRO12.

"This would rejuvenate the PRO12/14 tournament with excitement," he added.

"The addition of two South African Super Rugby teams would increase TV viewership in Europe and South Africa and especially on-site spectator audiences coming to Bloemfontein and the (Nelson) Mandela Bay Stadium, to watch their teams play against teams from Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Italy, in this exciting tournament.

"It would be like the Cheetahs and EP Rugby each hosting six home 'Tests' a year."

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SuperRug ... r-20170419

[rowan]

Force remain adamant:

THE Western Force have dismissed reports their future hinges on next week’s meeting with the ARU, saying the governing body has no legal rights to remove them from the Super Rugby competition.

Either the Force or Rebels will be cut from next year’s reduced competition, with both franchises now exploring their legal options.

The Force have issued a writ in the Supreme Court notifying the ARU of their intentions to apply for an injunction against any plan to boot them out of the competition.

RugbyWA and the ARU will meet next Thursday but the Force deny this meeting will make-or-break their future.

“RugbyWA’s position is clear. Under current arrangements the Western Force is entitled to participate in the Super Rugby competition until 30 December, 2020,” the Force said in a statement.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/force ... d31e0d8ca2

Meanwhile, interesting opinion in the Roar today, though not one I'd personally agree with:

Creating a second division in an expanded Super Rugby is a better idea than culling teams

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opin ... ling-teams

[Lizard]

A second tier is always a hard sell for TV, but it could work in rugby terms.

Take the current 18 sides, add Tongan, Fijian and Samoan franchises, a 6th NZ team based in Napier or New Plymouth (it would be in the interests of NZ rugby to operate this as a development/feeder team to the other 5) and run two 11-team comps with promo/relegation. There would be room to add a 2nd Argentine side in due course.

[rowan]

What I don't get is why rugby can't just have a normal professional comp like every other sport - especially in the Southern Hemisphere, where the game is strongest. Ok, NZ has a modest population, but sure they and Australia could put together something that wouldn't involve such a ridiculous amount of travel. Then we could've looked at a second division. But a second tier tournament based on the current Super Rugby model, with teams travelling practically everywhere but Europe, is surely not a viable proposition. How rugby union must envy AFL and NRL, which are primarily inter-suburban championships & draw comparable numbers of fans - yet you could travel to most games on a bicycle ...

[rowan]

So there have in fact been discussions about an ACT-Victoria merger, which seems the most logical option to me, and while this article begins by implying the concept has been rejected out of hand, reading on it appears the ARU is simply stating that they have not discussed it themselves:

The Australian Rugby Union (ARU) have rejected the idea of forming a merger between the Rebels and Brumbies to compete in Super Rugby.

Rebels owner Andrew Cox has welcomed discussion on the idea of a merger of his Melbourne-based and the Brumbies who are based in Canberra. Former Wallabies coach John Connolly raised the idea and has backed the under threat Western Force to remain in the competition.

But an ARU spokesman told AAP there had been no change in the organisation’s stance that the Brumbies be excluded from discussions to reduce the participation of Australian teams from five to four in Super Rugby.

Both the Rebels and Force – the teams that are under threat – have said the ARU has no legal right to remove them after governing body SANZAAR’s decision to axe one Australian and two South African Super Rugby teams.

Connolly, who also coached the Reds during the 1990s, told News Corp Australia the Brumbies were fortunate to survive the axe.

His merger proposal would see the “Melbourne Brumbies” divide their home fixtures between Melbourne and Canberra, while the Force’s ability to produce homegrown talent entitled them a place in the tournament.

But Cox said no discussions had taken place with the Brumbies regarding a merger.

“It’s certainly great to see someone thinking outside the box to help the ARU board find a way out of this,” he told News Corp.

“But it is a matter for the ARU board and we certainly haven’t had any discussions with the Brumbies.”

In fact, The Australian gives the story quite a different spin http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/r ... b2b8c479af

[rowan]

Looks to me like the ARU is gunning for the Force. First they "reject" the idea of an ACT-Melbourne merger, which seems the most diplomatic solution and has actually been welcomed by one of those clubs, and now they are clearly having issues with the Perth administration. Closing down the Force is the easy option because they are under the ARU's control, whereas the Rebels are under private ownership, I believe. But the Force also have a clause in their contract guaranteeing their participation until 2020, which the ARU seems to have overlooked.

THE Super Rugby downsizing saga could drag on for several more weeks — or even longer — after a proposed meeting after WA Rugby and the Australian Rugby Union on Thursday was abandoned.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 41d772fede

[rowan]

Seems there is quite a bit of serious discussion now about the prospect of either South Africa's Super Rugby rejects or top Currie Cup teams joining Europe's Pro 12. Actually, I'd like to see the Kings & Cheetahs give that a go. Not sure about the CC, because there is so much history and tradition there. But it does raise a few interesting questions about the direction top flight rugby will take in the future. Perhaps it would be better for SA to align itself with Europe, while NZ & Australia could devleop a closer relationship with the Pacific Islands and Japan. Works much better in terms of time zones, but then of course you have the problem of opposing seasons - an issue which has so far plagued the fledgling Americas Rugby Championship. Another prospect might be for Europe to actually enter its own conference in Super Rugby some day, thereby creating a fully global club championship. That's not so far-fetched. The US and Canada are certainly looking for ideas at the moment as Pro Rugby appears to be fizzling. Imagine a 30 team tournament divided into New Zealand, Australian, Asia/Pacific, South African, Americas and European conferences, with the former three in a Pacific Division and the latter three in an entirely separate Atlantic Division, leading to integrated play-offs.

Eastern Province Rugby Union (EPRU) president Andre Rademan has admitted there is a possibility for them to join a European competition.

Rademan was responding to speculation that his union’s Super Rugby franchise, the Southern Kings, would lose their status in the southern hemisphere competition in 2018.

SANZAAR recently announced that the Super Rugby competition will be reduced from 18 to 15 teams from next year, with South Africa losing two teams and Australia one.

While SA Rugby is yet to make an official announcement, the expectation is that the Kings and Cheetahs will be the South African teams eliminated.

Tony McKeever, a former Eastern Cape rugby boss, recently suggested in an exclusive discussion with Sport24 that the Cheetahs and Kings should join the PRO12 competition in Europe.

The PRO12 - which runs from September to May - is an annual competition involving 12 professional sides from Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SuperRug ... s-20170426

[rowan]

Just following on from my Global Super Rugby tournament suggestion, it could look something like this:

Pacific Division

NZ Conference: Blues, Chiefs, Canes, Saders, Landers
Aus Conference: Tahs, Reds, ACT-Victoria, Force, Fiji
Asia Conference: 5 teams (presumably Japanese)

Atlantic Division

SA Conference: Stormers, Sharks, Bulls, Cats (Lions-Cheetahs), Kings
Americas Conference: 3 Argentina teams, 1 US, 1 Canadian
European Conference: Top 5

Teams play all Divisional rivals (14 games). Conference winners plus best runner-up in each Division progress to Quarter Finals - Pacific 1 hosts Atlantic 4, Pacific 2 hosts Atlantic 3, Atlantic 2 hosts Pacific 3, Atlantic 1 hosts Pacific 4.

Semis

Final

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Just following on from my Global Super Rugby tournament suggestion, it could look something like this:

Pacific Division

NZ Conference: Blues, Chiefs, Canes, Saders, Landers
Aus Conference: Tahs, Reds, ACT-Victoria, Force, Fiji
Asia Conference: 5 teams (presumably Japanese)

Atlantic Division

SA Conference: Stormers, Sharks, Bulls, Cats (Lions-Cheetahs), Kings
Americas Conference: 3 Argentina teams, 1 US, 1 Canadian
European Conference: Top 5

Teams play all Divisional rivals (14 games). Conference winners plus best runner-up in each Division progress to Quarter Finals - Pacific 1 hosts Atlantic 4, Pacific 2 hosts Atlantic 3, Atlantic 2 hosts Pacific 3, Atlantic 1 hosts Pacific 4.

Semis

Final

Fair play I've seen some ridiculous suggestions, but slashing European rugby to 5 teams is right up there with the worst.

[cashead]

Either that, or Super Rugby in addition to the seemingly never-ending already European domestic rugby season.

And how are the five Japanese teams to be determined? The various levels of pro and semi-pro rugby? Does the university-competition get taken into account? What are the venues going to be?

[rowan]

Not to be taken to seriously, chaps. Personally I'd rather see Super Rugby remain a Southern Hemisphere regional championship, as you are no doubt aware, but with the way things seem to be going I thought I'd throw this in, partly tongue-in-cheek - though not entirely, because if they're going to include Japan and talk about North America (as some have), and then have Super Rugby or CC teams playing Pro 12 teams, then something vaguely resembling this might just emerge in a decade or so's time. The European conference was suggested not as a replacement for extant Euro competition, obviously, but as an addition - because they just don't seem to be playing enough rugby already !

[rowan]

Not looking good for the Rebels:

Reports in Australia suggest that the Melbourne Rebels future in Super Rugby is far from certain due to an alleged buyout by the Australian Rugby Union.

The ARU have moved to buy back the Rebels from owner Andrew Cox, who purchased the side from the ARU back in 2015. Should that offer go through then there is every chance the ARU would move to close the Rebels down.

Both the local Victorian government, home of the Rebels, and West Australian government, home of the Force, are vying to keep a Super Rugby team in their respective states.

According to The Australian, the West Australian government have proposed to back the Force to the tune of $2million (AUS).

[rowan]

Definitely looks like the Rebels are the target now, but they're not going quietly:


The stage is set for another twist in Australia’s Super Rugby saga, with reports the Rebels are set to sue the ARU.

Reports emerged on Monday night that the Rebels were lining up to sue the ARU over the ongoing saga, with hopes of any swift resolution long gone.

Rebels owner Andrew Cox has maintained he is reserving all his legal rights, while the Rebels continue to stand by their Good Friday statement, that lashed the governing body.

While the option still remains for Cox to sell the Rebels, multiple players have spoken publicly about his reassurance to them that he would not be getting rid of the franchise.

The reports come ahead of SANZAAR’s executive meeting in Tokyo this week, the first since the decision to cut Super Rugby from 18 teams to 15 was announced.

http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2017/05/08 ... rebels-aru

Merger with ACT !! Melbourne can still host games.

[rowan]

Food for thought:
As Super Rugby twists itself in knots trying to work out how it can successfully reduce itself in size next year, the greatest shame of all is the door appears to be ever more firmly shut on the Pacific Islands.

It has long been the greatest travesty of Super Rugby that it has ignored and actively rejected any direct Pacific Island influence and feels even more so now that the Sunwolves and Jaguares are digging in for the long haul. There's also an undeniable possibility that Australian rugby is in terminal decline.

Maybe things will get better across the Tasman but that certainly won't happen quickly and the South Pacific region would be well advised to start seriously building credible Super Rugby alternatives outside of Australia.

If Samoa can be asked to come to the rescue of the All Blacks by agreeing at late notice to play a test at Eden Park on June 16, then why can't they be asked to come to the rescue of a Super Rugby competition that is more desperately in need of being saved?

The question needs to be asked how it is that a team from Japan and a team from Argentina are firmly ensconced in Super Rugby while the Islands are out in the cold. The logic defies belief on all fronts.

The geography is troubling. Argentina is not an easy flight for teams from any part of the world.

It's time difference is also an issue and having one team in such relative isolation adds significant costs and welfare burdens.

The same problem exists with the Sunwolves. Next year they will play in the Australian Conference and the logistics of that are going to be tedious. How much it's going to cost flying so many times between Australia and Japan is also a serious concern. Best guess is that it is the better part of $180,000 a time to shift a team long haul.

Continued below.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/ar ... NZH_FBpage

[zer0]

'All of the expansion teams have been awful so we should add another'. Cracking logic. Exactly what you expect from the Herald.

[rowan]

Number one criteria is the competition needs to be making money and Pacific Island involvement isn't going to do that for them. Super Rugby can best assist rugby in the islands through its eligibility laws, which allow for the contracting of Fijian, Samoan and Tongan players, so far as I'm aware.

Meanwhile, World Rugby has made some changes to its eligibility laws: http://www.worldrugby.org/news/245382

[rowan]

Spot on

Under the circumstances, I would argue that the Japan-based Sunwolves are surprisingly fortunate to appear immune to scrutiny over their own less-than-illustrious contribution to Super Rugby so far.

Not even unanimously supported by the key rugby authorities and financial backers in Japan itself, the Sunwolves suddenly debuted in the much-changed – controversially so -- competition last year, supposedly as a step toward greater visibility for rugby in that country in the lead-up to their first-time hosting of the World Cup in 2019.

Although the Jaguares arrived simultaneously in Super Rugby 2016 as additional new faces to break the once exclusive “three-nation” flavour of SA, NZ and Australia, their presence at least fell in line with the promotion just a few years earlier of Argentina to a role in the Rugby Championship (formerly Tri-Nations) and they also helped keep an overwhelmingly southern-hemisphere flavour to Super Rugby.

But, located almost 4,000km north of the equator (at least as far as their main home base of Tokyo is concerned) the Sunwolves – rightly or wrongly -- greatly altered the identity of the competition.

I made the analogy on the SuperSport television chat show First XV last week that installing the Sunwolves to Super Rugby looked only a little less jarring than, say, Kaizer Chiefs or Boca Juniors suddenly being latched onto the English Premiership in football.

The following question, surely, has some pertinence: have the Sunwolves shown enough in a season and roughly two-thirds thus far to convince that it is worth retaining them, at the expense of a team from one of the more established rugby superpowers … and given the disenchantment the intended sacrifices is so clearly causing?

Statistically, something that should always be among the purest of sporting barometers, it is a battle to justify the presence of a rather journeyman-looking side – well short on true individual star quality -- who admittedly draw good crowds in Tokyo but often miserly gates in their alternative home, Singapore.

They have won a grand total of two Super Rugby matches in 25 appearances, embracing all of last season and to the current juncture in 2017, for a win percentage of a lamentable eight!

That puts them significantly shy, performance-wise, of all of the other four teams in the competition under the greatest threat of being binned.

Here’s another thought that hardly serves as justification for the Sunwolves’ survival at the expense of any other, more established franchise: they haven’t yet beaten a single one of the four sides who are under a participation cloud from next year.

In 2016, these were the relevant results (home team given first): Sunwolves 31 Cheetahs 32, Sunwolves 9 Rebels 35, Kings 33 Sunwolves 28, Cheetahs 92 Sunwolves 17, Sunwolves 22 Force 40.

Thus far in 2017, the card reads: Sunwolves 23 Kings 37, Cheetahs 38 Sunwolves 31.

If you assembled a “league table” of comparative performance between the Sunwolves, Kings, Cheetahs, Force and Rebels for all fixtures between the start of 2016 and the present in the 2017 competition, this is what it would look like, in descending order from best in win percentage terms:

Rebels: P25 W 8 D1 L16; Log pts: 39. Win percentage: 32.00

Kings: P25 W6 D0 L19; Log pts: 28. Win percentage: 24.00

Cheetahs: P26 W6 D0 L20; Log pts: 32. Win percentage: 23.07

Force: P25 W5 D0 L20; Log pts: 26. Win percentage: 20.00

Sunwolves: P25 W2 D1 L22; Log pts: 16. Win percentage: 8.00

Food for thought? Or is that not even going to be entertained?

It wouldn’t appear so …

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SuperRug ... 7#cxrecs_s

[Eugene Wrayburn]

There are sound commercial reasons for retaining the Sunwolves. There are also decent reasons for thinking that killing off the franchise in its sporting infancy would be premature. It may not work, but it's hardly been given a chance to develop.

[rowan]

Well, the writer there has shared almost word-for-word the very concerns I have been expressing about the Sunwolves all along: notably their geographical unsuitability - which, aside from ridiculous travelling schedules - has been a major factor in making the championship appear so Mickey Mouse over the past two years, by removing its regional identity. & also the unfairness of effectively replacing one of the extant South African or Australia franchises with a team from Tokyo.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Well, the writer there has shared almost word-for-word the very concerns I have been expressing about the Sunwolves all along: notably their geographical unsuitability - which, aside from ridiculous travelling schedules - has been a major factor in making the championship appear so Mickey Mouse over the past two years, by removing its regional identity. & also the unfairness of effectively replacing one of the extant South African or Australia franchises with a team from Tokyo.

I'm afraid sharing your concerns is not necessarily a mark of quality.

Geographical unsuitability is a pretty silly objection. The travel schedule remains heinous, but always was. When teams all have to board a jet to play away fixtures it matters little which hemisphere you get off in. It was always a forced tournament. It doesn't seem more "Mickey Mouse" than before.

[rowan]

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I think geographical unsuitability is a most pertinent issue, and we can see for ourselves the results of ignoring it. The travel schedule was never this heinous, and the conference systems were designed to reduce this, not increase it - as ultimately transpired with the Sunwolves' inclusion. It wasn't a Mickey Mouse competition before it expanded to 18. People had different views on the conference system, but I don't think the crowds and TV audiences dropped off during that time at all, the way they have now - and that's the ultimate gauge, not individual opinions.

Here we can see Northern Hemisphere officials exercising a great deal more caution where the (much less challenging) prospect of North American involvement is concerned (and you can take that as praise, which I don't dish out to the NH very often): https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... houston-us

[cashead]

Then why not drop the Jaguares?

[rowan]

Then why not drop the Jaguares?

Let me count the ways:

1 Argentina earned its belated place in the Rugby Championship with a 3rd-place finish at the 2007 RWC (ahead of NZ & Aus)
2 Argentina has beaten both SA and Australia on multiple occasions and drawn once with the All Blacks
3 Argentina is in the Southern Hemisphere, which had become the championships' accepted geographical identity
4 Argentina plays in the same season as the original SANZAR trio and is the only other Southern Hemisphere tier 1 nation
5 The Jaguares have performed adequately, and played a decisive role last year by thwarting the Lions home final prospects
6 The Jaguares have won more games already this year than they did last, and have easily out-performed the Sunwolves
7 In their most recent meeting Argentina trounced Japan 68-36 in 2005
8 Argentina is not the antipodes of any of the SANZAR nations, as Japan is in the case of SA

[cashead]

1. Argentina earned its belated place in the Rugby Championship by finally accepting that insisting on staying amateur was doing them and their team no favours.
2. Japan has a 100% winning record against South Africa and unlike Argentina, they got it in 1.
3. Argentina has greater (in a quantitative sense) flight times from NZ and Australia than Japan.
4. The Japanese season has no significant impact on the Super Rugby season, and is quite compressed.
5. Just 4 wins and 11 losses with a team that is a shit season for a team that is almost entirely made up of test players, and "they had an impact on the where the final would be played" is a stupid fucking argument.
6. The Sunwolves have so far halved their negative PD from last year, have beaten a former champion team and left Hamilton with their heads held high after running the Chiefs close.
7. Wrong. Aside from that, the Pumas and the Jaguares are two different teams with different coaches, even if they share many players.
8. This is basically the exact same argument as point 3.